ABSTRACT

The importance of ethical leadership is presented in several past studies in support to improve
organizational performance. An organization corporate culture is associated with commitment to
quality, trust, customer satisfaction, employee loyalty, and financial performance. Proactive
approach is a better option for managers to incorporate ethical concerns into strategic planning.
To evaluate the impact of leadership styles on organization performance and corporate culture,
first it is required to understand the different leadership styles and organization culture.
Academic researchers can assist by investigating the relationship between ethical leadership and
organizational performance variables.

LEADERSHIP

There is no specific definition of leadership, there are many definitions of leadership but two
basic ideas about leadership are common, first it influences the behavior of followers and second
it directs the followers towards some defined objective to achieve the final goal, as objective is
product development to get sales enhancement as final goal.

According to Keith Simonton Dean of the University of California at Berkeley, general
definition of leadership is Leaders are those who influence group attitudes, performance, or
decision making greatly exceeds that of the average member of the group, (Simonton 1994, 17).
Another definition of leadership according to The Global Leadership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) productive organizational leadership is, leaders have the
capability to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and
success of the organizations of which they are members (House et al. 1997, 184). Leadership
definition in context of multinational organization. The important role of a leader in an
organization is to persuade the judgments and actions of others to achieve some finite set of
business goals (Gessner & Arnold 1999, xv).
There are different styles of leadership, and each style has its advantages and disadvantages,
which leadership styles are suitable for organization it depends on the culture and goals of that
organization. Some companies offer several leadership styles within the organization, dependent
upon the necessary tasks to complete and departmental needs.



Useful Leadership Style Frameworks
There are some effective leadership approaches to become a productive leader, but it is necessary
that personal approach, preferences and needs should be aligning with the leadership approach.
Lewin's Leadership Styles
This leadership framework was developed by Psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1930 and presented
the base of many other leadership styles, three major leadership styles were derived from this
framework:

Autocratic Leaders;
In this leadership style leaders do not consult with his or her team members nevertheless their
suggestions may be useful from the organizational prospective, such leaders always favor or like
authority with power. This approach is suitable in short term decision making, when you need to
make decisions quickly, team suggestion is not important and when team agreement isn't
necessary for a successful outcome. This leadership style is mostly follows in the forces; this
approach is successful when there is huge difference of intellectual level between the leader and
followers. However this style has disadvantages like demoralize the team members lack of brain
storming and lack of future growth this style lead to high staff turnover rate.
Democratic Leaders;
This leadership style is totally opposite to autocratic style, as in this framework final decision is
made with the full participation of team members, people are motivated to take participate in
final decision making process and people are often highly engaged in projects and decisions.
Brain storming and creativity are the basic theme of this style thats why team working under
this style is highly motivated and have high job satisfaction level and efficient productivity. But
this leadership style is not productive when you have to decide quickly in the short term. This
style is followed by the most of the multinational organization when team members are highly
trained and professional they have the capability of self growth.

Laissez- faire
This style is different from other leadership style as in this framework followers decide freely
without any bounding; such leaders give their team members lot of freedom to take decision but
with some deadlines to complete the goal followers under this style are supported by the leaders
with resources and advices if required. In autocratic style leaders are fully authorized to make
final decision , in democratic style final authority of decision making is divided among the
leaders and participants, but in this style team members are fully authorized to make final
decision, as members are highly esteem and motivated persons having high job satisfaction. But
it can be dangerous if member fails to meet deadline because of poor time management, or
intellectual level of team members is not so high, or skill level is lower than required criteria to
perform job effectively. (Laissez-faire leadership can also occur when managers don't have
control over their work and their people.) Lewin's framework is popular and useful, because it
encourages managers to be less autocratic than they might instinctively be.
The Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid
One of the best leadership styles, The Blake- Mouton Managerial Grid was published in 1964, it
is based on two main ideas your concern for people and your concern for production/task.
The leadership style which is people oriented, consider their employees as valuable asset , such
leadership follows the modern human resource management philosophies to develop the skill
level of their employees and their focus is on organizing, supporting, and developing your team
members. Team under this leadership style has high motivational level and high job satisfaction
level because leaders following this style believe their employees are more valuable than
production as highly motivated employees means high performance as employees are loyal. This
participatory style encourages good teamwork and creative collaboration.
Contrary production oriented leaders, just focus on how to complete job, leaders following this
style are similar to autocratic style as such leaders structure roles and policies on the basis of
production oriented philosophy. Employees are less motivated and job satisfaction level is low as
compare to people oriented leadership style, employee turnover rate is high because of leadership
style.
According to this model, the best leadership approach is to use is both a high concern for people
and a high concern for the production/task it argues that you should aim for both, rather than
trying to offset one against the other. Clearly, there should be balance approach for both.
The Hersey Blanchard Situational leadership Theory
This theory states that leadership style should be adopted according to maturity or intellectual
level of team member, The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership was published in 1969.
According to this theory leadership style should incorporate maturity level of team members as
need to adopt direct approach for immature employees, while participating and delegating
leadership style for people with relatively higher maturity level, as people with higher skill and
knowledge level prefer participatory or democratic leadership style rather than directing or
autocratic style. This style is suitable in situation when developing existing team or building new
team.
Path Goal Theory
This theory was produced in 1971; the main theme of this theory is that leadership style is
adopted on the basis of goals and objectives of organization, under these leadership style team
members are highly professional and capable to perform their objectives as complex task are
assign according to their capability and skill level democratic or participatory leadership style is
suitable for such members , where as in other scenario different leadership approach is required
for members with low ability and skill level with uncertain task autocratic style is better option
for such employees. Path Goal Theory helps to identify which leadership style is best, according
to their skill, capability level, nature of task assign and environment in which they are
performing their tasks.
Six Emotional leadership Styles
This theory of Six Emotional leadership Styles was explained in 2002 by Daniel Goleman,
Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee in their book, Primal leadership. This theory explains the
strength and weakness of six leadership styles that can be used as Visionary, Coaching,
Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting, and Commanding. This theory also states emotions of
team members are attached with leadership styles, and how these leadership styles effects the
emotions of team members.
Flamholtz and Randles Leadership Style Matrix
First published in 2007, Flamholtz and Randle's Leadership Style Matrix shows you the best
leadership style to use, based on how capable people are of working autonomously, and how
creative or "programmable" the task is.
The matrix is divided into four quadrants each quadrant identifies two possible leadership
styles that will be effective for a given situation, ranging from "autocratic/benevolent autocratic"
to "consensus/laissez-faire."


Transformational Leadership
These leadership style frameworks are all useful in different situations, however, in business,
"transformational leadership " is often the most effective leadership style to use. (This was first
published in 1978, and was then further developed in 1985.)
Transformational leaders have integrity and high emotional intelligence . They motivate people
with a shared vision of the future, and they communicate well. They're also typically self-
aware , authentic , empathetic , and humble .
Transformational leaders inspire their team members because they expect the best from
everyone, and they hold themselves accountable for their actions. They set clear goals, and
they have good conflict-resolution skills . This leads to high productivity and engagement.
However, leadership is not a "one size fits all" thing; often, you must adapt your approach to fit
the situation. This is why it's useful to develop a thorough understanding of other leadership
frameworks and styles; after all, the more approaches you're familiar with, the more flexible you
can be.
Specific Leadership Styles
As well as understanding the frameworks that you can use to be a more effective leader, and
knowing what it takes to be a transformational leader, it's also useful to learn about more
general leadership styles, and the advantages and disadvantages of each one.
Let's take a look at some other leadership styles that are interesting, but don't fit with any of the
frameworks above.
Note:
Remember, not all of these styles will have a positive effect on your team members, either in the short or
long term. (See our article on Dunham and Pierce's Leadership Model for more on how your actions
as a leader will affect your team.)
Bureaucratic Leadership
Bureaucratic leaders follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures
precisely.
This leadership style is appropriate for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with
machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights), or with large sums of money.
Bureaucratic leadership is also useful for managing employees who perform routine tasks.
This style is much less effective in teams and organizations that rely on flexibility, creativity, or
innovation.
Charismatic Leadership
A charismatic leadership style resembles transformational leadership: both types of leaders
inspire and motivate their team members.
The difference lies in their intent. Transformational leaders want to transform their teams and
organizations, while leaders who rely on charisma often focus on themselves and their own
ambitions, and they may not want to change anything.
Charismatic leaders might believe that they can do no wrong, even when others warn them
about the path that they're on. This feeling of invincibility can severely damage a team or an
organization, as was shown in the 2008 financial crisis.
Servant Leadership
A "servant leader" is someone, regardless of level, who leads simply by meeting the needs of
the team. The term sometimes describes a person without formal recognition as a leader.
These people often lead by example. They have high integrity and lead with generosity . Their
approach can create a positive corporate culture, and it can lead to high morale among team
members.
Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest that it's a good way to move ahead in a
world where values are increasingly important, and where servant leaders can achieve power
because of their values, ideals, and ethics .
However, others believe that people who practice servant leadership can find themselves "left
behind" by other leaders, particularly in competitive situations.
This leadership style also takes time to apply correctly: it's ill-suited to situations where you have
to make quick decisions or meet tight deadlines.
Transactional Leadership
This leadership style starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader when
they accept a job. The "transaction" usually involves the organization paying team members in
return for their effort and compliance on a short-term task. The leader has a right to "punish"
team members if their work doesn't meet an appropriate standard.
Transactional leadership is present in many business leadership situations, and it does offer
some benefits. For example, it clarifies everyone's roles and responsibilities. And, because
transactional leadership judges team members on performance, people who are ambitious or
who are motivated by external rewards including compensation often thrive.
The downside of this style is that, on its own, it can be chilling and amoral, and it can lead to
high staff turnover. It also has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work.
As a result, team members can often do little to improve their job satisfaction.


Laissez-Faire
A laissez-faire leader lacks direct supervision of employees and fails to provide regular feedback
to those under his supervision. Highly experienced and trained employees requiring little
supervision fall under the laissez-faire leadership style. However, not all employees possess
those characteristics. This leadership style hinders the production of employees needing
supervision. The laissez-faire style produces no leadership or supervision efforts from managers,
which can lead to poor production, lack of control and increasing costs.
Autocratic
The autocratic leadership style allows managers to make decisions alone without the input of
others. Managers possess total authority and impose their will on employees. No one challenges
the decisions of autocratic leaders. Countries such as Cuba and North Korea operate under the
autocratic leadership style. This leadership style benefits employees who require close
supervision. Creative employees who thrive in group functions detest this leadership style
Participative
Often called the democratic leadership style, participative leadership values the input of team
members and peers, but the responsibility of making the final decision rests with the participative
leader. Participative leadership boosts employee morale because employees make contributions
to the decision-making process. It causes them to feel as if their opinions matter. When a
company needs to make changes within the organization, the participative leadership style helps
employees accept changes easily because they play a role in the process. This style meets
challenges when companies need to make a decision in a short period.
Transactional
Managers using the transactional leadership style receive certain tasks to perform and provide
rewards or punishments to team members based on performance results. Managers and team
members set predetermined goals together, and employees agree to follow the direction and
leadership of the manager to accomplish those goals. The manager possesses power to review
results and train or correct employees when team members fail to meet goals. Employees receive
rewards, such as bonuses, when they accomplish goals.
Transformational
The transformational leadership style depends on high levels of communication from
management to meet goals. Leaders motivate employees and enhance productivity and efficiency
through communication and high visibility. This style of leadership requires the involvement of
management to meet goals. Leaders focus on the big picture within an organization and delegate
smaller tasks to the team to accomplish goals.
Type1. Autocratic Style
Autocratic type of leader is called an Autocrat. He does not consult his subordinates (followers).
He takes all the decisions by himself. He also takes full responsibility for his decisions. The
subordinates must obey him without asking any questions.
Type 2. Consultative Style
Consultative type of leader has an open mind. He encourages his subordinates to give their
suggestions and comments. If these suggestions and comments are good, then he will accept
them. So this leader consults his subordinates before taking a decision. However, the final
decision is taken by the leader. Therefore, he takes full responsibility for his decision.
Type 3. Participative Style
Participative type of leader encourages his subordinates to take part in decision making. The
final decision is not taken by the leader himself. It is taken by the group (team), i.e. by the leader
and his subordinates. The leader gives his subordinates full scope for using their talents. He is
loyal to them. Therefore, they are loyal to him. They obey his orders willingly. They have a
genuine (real) respect for him.
Type 4. Laissez-Faire Style
Laissez-Faire style of leader is passive. He only acts as a contact man. He provides information
and resources to his subordinates. He believes that the subordinates will work best if they are left
alone. Therefore, he gives them complete freedom to take their own decisions. He allows them to
plan and organise their own work. He allows them to set their own goals and to solve problems
on their own.
Type 5. Bureaucratic Leader
Bureaucratic leader follows all the rules and formalities of the organisation. He does not believe
in new ideas. He wants his subordinates to follow all his orders. This leadership style result in
red tapism and unwanted paper work.
Type 6. Neurocratic Leader
Neurocratic leader is highly a task oriented one. He wants to get the work done at any cost. He
gets very upset if there is any failure. He is very emotional, sensitive and eccentric. He does not
consult his subordinates in decision making. He takes his own decisions.
Type 7. Paternalistic Style
Paternalistic style of a leader creates a family atmosphere in the organisation. He acts just like a
parent of his subordinates. He advises, guides and helps his subordinates with their personal
problems. This style of leadership will be successful in a small organisation having a very few
employees and only one leader.
Type 8. Sociocratic Style
The sociocratic leader tries to run the organisation just like a Social Club. He gives less
importance to production and more importance to friendship. That is, he tries to keep his
subordinates very happy. So, he creates a warm and good social environment.
Type 9. Situational Style
Situational type of leader uses different styles in different situations. That is, he changes his style
according to the situation. Sometimes he will be autocratic, or consultative, or participative, etc.
Now-a-days, most managers use this style of leadership.







As in the case of leadership, there is no agreed upon definition of culture. At a broad
pragmatic level, culture is defined by social scientists as a set of characteristics or descriptors
that differentiate groups in a consistently identifiable and meaningful way (e.g., Hispanic,
French, Hindu, Republican, Southern, Generation X). Prominent
THE LEADER AS CULTURAL LEADER
Whether deliberately or unintentionally, each company, organization or church possesses a
distinctive culture. For example, Nordstrom prides itself on its signature customer service. It
is no accident, therefore, when a smiling Nordstrom salesperson steps from behind the
counter to hand a customer the item, which he or she has purchased. Such personal
attentiveness reflects the defining culture of this upscale department store. The defining
culture of Southwest Airlines is that it sees itself as being a family. This vision does not
only apply to how it treats its employees, but also its passengers. Thus, Southwest does not
charge baggage fees because its passengers are also viewed as being a part of the family.

Defining and developing a distinctive corporate culture requires proactive purpose. It is here
the role of a leader is crucial because he or she is the cultural leader. This does not mean that
being the cultural leader simply requires the mandating and maintaining of training programs
and structures designed to instill within employees the vision, values, objectives of the
corporation, organization or church. Providing training manuals, viewing motivational
videos and even demanding all employees and team members participate in an obligatory
three-month orientation program certainly might help. But, as a cultural leader, it is the
leader who must directly be responsible for modeling the organizations culture.

In his article, Key Leadership Challenges for Present and Future Executives, William C.
Steers, chairman of the Board and CEO of Pfizer Inc, writes that a critical step in leadership
is to recognize that organizational culture is a pressing business issue. He argues, Shaping it
is a principal senior leadership responsibility. It cannot be delegated to human resources or
some other department. Senior leaders are both the architects and the general contractors.
Steers contends, They should be judged not only by the elegance of their plans, but also the
quality of implementation and maintenance of the design.

According to Steers, there are several key elements of organizational culture:
Identifying and communicating the core values and principles that guide organizational
behavior and decision making
Specifying behaviors that exemplify the companys values or principles (and, by inference,
those that do not) and leading by example ;
Developing a method by which individuals can receive feedback on their performance in
both business-finance and behavioral terms
Ensuring that the rewards or reinforcement systems are consistent with organizational values
and principles, recognize and promote desirable behaviors, and punish undesirable behaviors
Personally assuming the responsibility of championing the desired culture and recognizing
the need for redundancy and reinforcement concerning what is expected and what is
negotiable.

Being a cultural leader requires consistent attention and focus. At the same time, there is the
need to recognize that there will always be a creative tension within an organization, group or
church congregation. Such tension should not be regarded negatively since all dynamic,
creative, vital and healthy groups are marked by positive tension. It is this realization that
requires a cultural leader to give a high priority to nurturing positive, open and transparent
relationships. Fostering such relationships through the use of language, listening skills, the
propagation of values, and clarification of core values are all keys to building community,
respect and dignity. Harvard Business School professor, James L. Heskett insightfully states
Relational power is a term that might be added to the lexicon of all cultural leaders.
Being a companys cultural leader cannot be done at a distance. This is especially the case
within our increasingly complex technological society with its often impersonal and removed
ways of communicating. Certainly, video conferencing and other means of connecting are
often economically and logistically desirable, but to overlook or downplay the formative
value of face-to-face networking can undermine the qualitative nurturing and shaping of a
corporate culture. A defining quality of the leadership of Abraham Lincoln was his belief
and practice of visiting his troops in the field. A leadership axiom states, It is good to see
and to be seen. James OToole writes, Respect for followers is made manifest by listening
to them, faithfully representing them, pursing their noblest aspirations, keeping promises
made to them, and never doing harm to them or their cause. There is no substitute for
personal leadership presence.
This is especially true when it comes to being an effective cultural leader. Taking time to
build relationships of trust signifies respect and the honoring of personal dignity. One of the
best illustrations of how this is done is revealed in the cultural leadership style of Michael J.
Roberts, former President and Chief Operating Officer of McDonalds Corporation. In what
Roberts calls the process of Noodle Teams, he made it his practice personally to meet four
times a year over a three-day period with employees around the region or world, suppliers,
owner operators and external experts for gloves-off feedback sessions. These provided
Roberts with unfiltered ground-level operational and relational information. Roberts listened,
took notes, probed, asked questions, sought clarification and was never defensive as he heard
the stories from those working on the front lines of the day-to-day operations of the
organization. Such face-to-face sessions enabled Roberts not only to gain direct empirical
operational data and insight as to where improvements might be made but also helped to
build a corporate culture of candor and trust.

Being an effective cultural leader demands one to be available, authentic, transparent,
vulnerable, consistent and credible. This does not imply a requirement of being perfect; quite
the contrary. As even the Bible reminds us, no leader is perfect. In fact, one of the most
potent leadership teaching tools is to communicate the fact that despite possessing strong
core values and a clear vision, even the most competent and revered cultural leaders remain
fallible, err, fall short and are in need of understanding, empathy, forgiveness and grace. It
was the nineteenth century celebrated Episcopalian pulpit prince of Trinity Church, Boston,
Phillips Brooks, who often spoke of truth through personality. As a cultural leader,
perhaps, this is a key insight as a marker for effectiveness. For every effective leader
continues to learn, to grow and mature. Seeming setbacks and failures are to be put under the
category of lessons learned.

There is a late nineteenth century painting by James Ensor entitled, Christs Entry into
Brussels in 1889. Obviously based upon the Palm Sunday entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the
painting depicts a pressing, jostling crowd crushing upon each other. There are flags,
banners, and a vast variety of faces, including many in this almost unruly mob wearing black,
white and colorful masks. To the right in the painting are some spectators peering down
upon the scene from on a high platform. They are frantically trying to identify the center of
celebration, Jesus. But, Jesus is difficult to see. A similar frustration confronts the viewer of
the painting. Jesus is nowhere to be seen! Finally, after endless searching Jesus can be
identified. The question the viewer of the painting asks, If Jesus is the leader of this would-
be political and spiritual revolution, where is he? If he is the leader why isnt out-front and
easily recognized? But, here is the clue. As the cultural leader of this movement, his
leadership was not authenticated by position, power and prestige but by the moral influence
of his character and person. Those who embrace his cause were magnetically drawn by his
humility, sensitivity, his awareness of their humanity and the challenges they confronted
within their lives. His cultural leadership was that of a servant leader.

In the book, Compassion: a Reflection on the Christian Life, Henri Nouwen writes:

When we give up our desires to be outstanding or different, when we let go of our needs to
have our own special niches in life, when our main concern is to be the same, and to live out
this sameness in solidarity, we are then able to see each others unique gifts. Gathered
together in common vulnerability, we discover how much we have to give to each other . It
belongs to the essence of this new togetherness that our unique talents are no longer objects
of competition but elements of community, no longer qualities that divide but gifts that unite.


Further Reading:

Frances Hesselbein et al., The Leader of the Future, Jossey Bass. 1996.

Essay by William C. Steer, Jr., Key Leadership Challenges for Present and Future
Executives.
James OToole, Leading Change, Jossey Bass, 1995.

Ron Carucci, Bridging the Leadership Divide, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vo. 5, No. 3,
pp. 65-73.